Can’t we just be decent to people at the end of their lives

Senator David Leyonhjelm has a private member's bill to restore to the right of the Northern Territory and the ACT to pass legislation on assisted suicide. Good on him. That right was taken away by the Andrews legislation in 1997. I didn’t support it.

Senator David Leyonhjelm.Credit:AAP

It’s fair to say that Kevin Andrews and I disagree on many things. When Parliament was deciding if scientists could use unwanted frozen fertilised eggs for research he was bitterly opposed. The fertilised eggs were in my view inappropriately humanised by being called embryos. Those in favour of the scientists having access were regarded as heathens who would chop up babies.

Loading

Remember, these were surplus frozen fertilised eggs. Andrews was asked what should happen to them and, with bowed head, he almost whispered that they should be allowed to “succumb”. I had to translate for those who hadn’t gripped the reality: “He means they’ll be chucked in the rubbish bin.” Surely being used for research to better mankind is a more fitting end than being chucked in the bin?

Advertisement

Similarly we disagree about the end stages of life. I hope more states will find a way to pass assisted dying legislation and believe the territories should have the power to do the same. There is no reason that we should refuse to end the suffering of two groups of people. First, those who have a terminal illness and are more worried about the quality of their remaining life than the quantity. Second, those for whom just age has taken its toll and whose consequent frailty leaves them incapable of doing much and who do not want to spend their last months being cared for as one does a baby.

Extending our lives when we are in reasonable condition is a good thing. Extending them when we’re not is quite the opposite. It’s cruel and inhuman. It’s barbaric. There is nothing Christian about it.

Life is the pathway you step on at birth and it leads to one thing, your death. Living is the process of dying.

Thankfully not many of us want to enjoy less than a natural term of life. But the popular quote says it all. “None of us are getting out of here alive.” It’s a fact we don’t face up to very well.

A friend of mine was diagnosed late last year with cancer. The treatment went exceptionally well. Thankfully. She’s just a few years older than me and has her head screwed on the right way. She spent, as she usually does, summer at the beach before she started treatment. She made her view clear. “This is unfortunate but it isn’t a tragedy. A six-year-old with incurable cancer is a tragedy. I have to deal with it and hope for the best.” I’m both lucky and proud to have such a clear-thinking and dignified friend.

Why we make death a bogeyman I don’t know. Inevitably death produces much grief. The person dying understandably regrets that their time with us is ending. The rest of us lose loved ones, we and they don’t get to do the good things we used to together. We suffer. We miss them. However their suffering is over. Once that has happened the nastiness in death is for the survivors.

Wouldn't it be better if we understood life as being the wonderful opportunity that comes after nothing and is followed by nothing? Another friend I admire, who is not particularly religious, says life is just our time on God’s dance floor. It might not sound rational but it is a very elegant way of pointing out that we can enjoy life ... but not develop a sense of entitlement to more and more. This woman says she’s had a good life, if her condition worsens she will manage as best she can. Accepting the inevitable, in a graceful and dignified way is the best we can hope for.

In an ideal world our medical research budgets should be skewed toward giving humans better lives rather than further extending our lives at the end. Ask yourself, would you rather spend $300,000 on a drug that might give an 80-year-old another three perhaps uncomfortable months or on research that might find a cure for a childhood disease or on a cure for something that might send otherwise healthy young people blind ?

They are difficult choices but my vote is not with the 80-year-old. I do, however, want everyone whose life is ending, prematurely or otherwise, to go with dignity.

I’m a bit down on humans at the moment. We are nowhere near as good, kind or smart as we think. Our self-importance in the context of a galaxy and universe is laughable. We’re important players on the globe but everything has its place and purpose.

You shouldn’t be able to take another person’s life. But your own life is yours. I think if you're an adult you should be able to go when you choose. Quietly and in a dignified way. Why not?

If you are a believer and you say it’s against God’s law then when your time comes don’t avail yourself of the opportunity. Don’t worry, God will deal with the lawbreakers. Being a believer you are not God’s police. Imagine an all omnipotent god needing us to be enforcers. It somewhat detracts from the notion of omnipotence. It’s laughable.

In the context of an omnipotent god , creator of the universe, there are bigger problems to deal with than a few humans choosing to leave the “surly bonds of earth” a little earlier than otherwise expected.

Seriously, can’t we just be decent to people at the end of their lives?

Amanda Vanstone is a Fairfax Media columnist and a former Coalition minister.